Christs image is it what you think?

Gregory95 said:

Read last post, its blaten and the only way to question it would require taking it out of context.

Click to expand...

What are you referring to?

Gregory95 said:

Post 39 I posted picture s of the chapter in question the verse being used to counter what I said has nothing to do with what Paul said about men with long hair

Click to expand...

What has that got to do with my post from the Septuagint? You posted from Ezekiel 44 and I replied with the Septuagint reading of the same. In that, the sons of Zadok were commanded not to cut their hair.

Hmm.. thanks.. way to much to even start.. Well the facts? Its like SOMEONE only picked what THEY wanted to show. "Constantine " "Pegan"..on and on. …

Hair.. a Jesus had long hair.. Lol.. that WORD one keeps trying to go back to.. its HIM.. HE wrote it... as of right now.. its shoulder length.. but who cares? I don't care if Hes bald or black or Asian or what ever.. facts BEFORE He died and rose.. he was not someone you wanted to look at.. ooooooh He is NOW.. and WHEN we see Him.. a His hair will not be something we care about..

Again.. this is just cherry picking..what someone picked. SOME of it is true but. But some FACTS are not correct.... well ASK HIM! His SHEEP.. believers KNOW His voice. HE is in you.. GO FOR IT...pray seek ask HIM about His hair.. you wont like what you hear back.. its something that makes no difference what so ever in this life... Ask Him ..Hes IN YOU! You are ONE... HE will talk.. but.. for MOST it will take some time since we mostly NEVER just TALK to Him.. HE tries.. but we don't take the time to just get alone and LISTEN

Descriptions of ha Mosiach:

Isaiah 53:2,3 He grew up before Him like a tender shoot & like a root out of dry ground. He had no stately form or majesty to attract us,
no beauty that we should desire Him.

He was despised & rejected by men, a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief. Like one from whom men hide their faces, He was despised & we esteemed Him not.



Isaiah 52:13-15 Behold, My Servant will prosper; He will be raised & lifted up & highly exalted—just as many were appalled at You—His appearance was disfigured beyond that of any man & His form was marred beyond human likeness—so He will startle many nations.

Kings will shut their mouths because of Him.For they will see what they have not been told & they will understand what they have not heard.

What was or was not considered appropriate dress or grooming is entirely culturally conditioned. This case actually demonstrates that quite nicely. In Jewish culture long hair and a full beard on a man was considered completely normal and, in prayer, both genders covered their heads. On the other hand in Greco-Roman culture (Paul's mission field) short hair and clean shaven were expected in a man. They even had a term for those who didn't --- they were called "barbarians". Men in that culture prayed bareheaded while women were covered. Paul even comments that " to the Jews he appeared as a Jew and to the Gentiles he appeared as a Gentile". He did not want to offend either culture. Portraying Jesus as long haired and bearded is culturally correct. What I object to is portraying him as a northern European.

Gregory95 said:

The Error of the Long-haired Jesus

Please read the article , and give your input

NO acting like a child with name calling or snarky comments. Be a adult and have a meaningful discussion.

Click to expand...

Jesus likely had black, curly, short hair like many Jews I've seen. He may have not been tall, may have had a long face. He likely had a good looking black beard that cover more than his jaw bone. Likely had either brown or greenish colored eyes.

Behold, Jesus.

John 20:24-29 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”

After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

Isaiah 53:1-3 Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot & like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty that we should look upon Him, nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.

He was despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief & like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

Isaiah 52:13-15 Behold, My servant will prosper, He will be high and lifted up and greatly exalted. Just as many were astonished at you, so His appearance was marred more than any man & His form more than the sons of men. Thus He will sprinkle many nations, Kings will shut their mouths on account of Him; for what had not been told them they will see & what they had not heard they will understand.

Exodus 20:4-6 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Gregory95 said:

The Error of the Long-haired Jesus

Please read the article , and give your input

NO acting like a child with name calling or snarky comments. Be a adult and have a meaningful discussion.

Click to expand...

Gregory95 said:

The Error of the Long-haired Jesus

Please read the article , and give your input

NO acting like a child with name calling or snarky comments. Be a adult and have a meaningful discussion.

Click to expand...

double post of 59 below

Evangelical 1 criticising CC: “CC is bad because it pictures Jesus with long hair, a style of representation used for false gods such as Zeus & Serapis”

Evangelical 2 criticising CC: “CC is bad because it pictures Jesus with long hair, a style of representation adopted from pictures of Cesare Borgia”.

So which is it ? If people are going to make comments that put a body of people in a bad light, it would be very nice if they would first of all get their story straight.

It is in any case a silly argument, and can be used against ideas dear to Evangelicals. For instance, a Sumerian myth tells us that:

The goddess Inanna-Ishtar descended to the Underworld - so did Jesus.
While there, she was impaled - rather like Jesus
She was dead for three days - so was Jesus
She was raised from the dead - so was Jesus.

Here is the entire myth -
Inana's descent to the nether world: translation

See especially lines 164-75.

Inana, it could be argued (if one were minded to argue in that way, which most of us are not), is the model for the Christian god Jesus.

Since Abram came from Ur and Haran (both of them Babylonian cities), he evidently continued to worship the
Babylonian gods, many of whom were taken over from the Sumerians. Ishtar was one of them. His descendants had many dealings with the Assyrians & Babylonians, and the Jews were exiles in Babylonia.

The Jewish calendar even has a month with the same name as the god Tammuz. Jesus never objected to that. Yet Tammuz was the husband of Inanna-Ishtar. So the Jesus-story is clearly a Jewish-Christian adaptation of a Sumerian myth. Like Jesus, Tammuz is a divine shepherd.
If Jesus was the real deal, why did He never once object to this very obvious idolatry ? Clearly because Jesus is either an invented person, invented to hide the Babylonian origins of Christianity - or, he was propagating the Babylonian religion of Abraham.

Evangelicals call Jesus “Saviour”. This is further proof that Biblical Christianity is nothing but warmed-over paganism: for the god Zeus is also called “Saviour”. Marduk the patron god of Babylon is called “merciful”, and the god Daiianu, “Judge”, is clearly the source of the idea that Jesus is Judge. If Jesus is called “King”, so was the god Hadad, the LUGAL or King of the city of Aleppo.

The attempt by some Evangelicals to use alleged or genuine similarities between Catholicism & non-Christian cultures, never notices the differences, nor why they are significant.

Using this type of reasoning, one can demonstrate that John Knox and John Calvin are the same individual:

John Calvin was called John
So was John Knox

John Calvin sponsored a Presbyterian type of Protestantism
So did John Knox

John Calvin strongly favoured a well-educated laity
So did John Knox

John Calvin was a former RC
So was John Knox

John Calvin was a prominent Protestant Reformer
So was John Knox.

John Calvin is often portrayed wearing an academic cap
So is John Knox

John Calvin took part in several religious controversies
So did John Knox

John Calvin was a man
So was John Knox

John Calvin had a long beard
So did John Knox

John Calvin died after 1560
So did John Knox

John Calvin did not reach his 60th birthday
Neither did John Knox

John Calvin wrote a good deal
So did John Knox

John Calvin has been commemorated by statues of him
So has John Knox

John Calvin was married
So was John Knox

John Calvin was predeceased by his wife
So was John Knox

John Calvin has a reputation for being gloomy
So has John Knox

John Calvin has had a lasting effect in politics
So has John Knox

John Calvin opposed Roman Catholicism with great vigour
So did John Knox

John Calvin died in his bed
So did John Knox

John Calvin was very outspoken
So was John Knox

John Calvin spent some of his life in France
So did John Knox

John Calvin corresponded with royalty
So did John Knox

John Calvin showed great zeal for what he considered true Christianity
So did John Knox

John Calvin was influential outside his homeland
So was John Knox

John Calvin wrote in the vernacular
So did John Knox

I make that 25 similarities between these two men. A couple of similarities are usually enough to prove to some Evangelicals that something RC is derived from something pagan. So by the reasoning adopted by some (most certainly not all) Evangelicals, John Knox and John Calvin must be the same person.

The reasoning such Christians use in order to show that Catholicism (or indeed some other form of Christianity) is pagan or pagan-related, needs to be tested for validity. And a simple way of testing it is, to apply it to something known for sure not to be pagan, to see whether, using that kind of reasoning, it can be demonstrated to be pagan. If it can be, then something is wrong with the reasoning adopted. In other words, this reasoning needs to be tested on something that can serve as a control on it.

For instance: if, as some Christians claim, episcopal mitres are pagan, then by association so must academic caps be pagan; because they are both developments of the same article of headgear. But both Calvin and Knox wore academic caps; therefore, by this particular variety of reasoning found among some evangelicals, Calvin and Knox are both tainted with paganism. The absurdity of the conclusion is obvious. It is absurd because the premise, that Episcopal mitres are pagan in origin, is false, & can be known to be so. It is of course conceivable that either Calvin or Knox or both was tainted with paganism in some way: but if that is to be demonstrated, it cannot be demonstrated by arguments based on what is false. And it can never be assumed from the outset that either of them was.

Gregory95 said:

Ah so you didn't read it , gotcha.

Click to expand...

Everything from that study was contaminated before they began.

A fire during the medieval period in the church where the shroud was stored. Massive smoke and burn damage to the cloth. There is no way to do a carbon study of anything with the amount of damage done before science got their hands on the cloth. Funny, The History Channel doesn't describe that in detail. The History Channel also ignores reality. If the Shroud is created during the medieval period, what did medieval artists believe at the time of it's creation? Interesting thought when considering one fatal flaw in the period. Interesting still that Mel Gibson fouled up when he laid his own hand on the crucifix in his film. The nail went through the palm of his hand, wrong . Scientific evidence and poof provides one clue that would be impossible on the shroud had it been created during the medieval period as claimed by this expert scientific team. The shroud shows the "Wrist" wounds and not the palm of the hand as claimed. Medieval artists believed what they read. Unfortunately for them, the Greek language does not have a word for wrists. Wrists were considered part of the hand. Every crucifix painted, sculptured and created at the time is historically wrong. However, archeology proves the point of the location where the nails were driven. Case after case of bones from crucifixions prove the nails went through the wrists and not the palms of the hands. One in particular is evidence of the nail striking a knot in the plank. The nail could not be removed, so the plank was cut with wrist and the nail intact. It was buried with the body.

The scientific team was not united on the final findings. Since that study, more modern Carbon testing has occurred that question the initial findings. Not one artist anywhere has come up with a method to copy the image. Every wound on the shroud, front and back, testify evidence that was not known at the supposed time of the claimed creation of the shroud. The scourging of this victim proves what a typical wounding of a person would look like according to history.

Given the presentations of several of the team disputing what was found and claimed, I would not consider the History Channel to be valid proof of anything. I've seen and read the testimonies and have listened to the video presentations of those in dispute. As well as, reading and listening to the new wave of scientists that call this study into question.